Question regarding with basic translation group 1 and group 2

Comments

• 1 Like

  Matt1234567 Inactive ⭐

  June 2015 1294 karma

  I guess it comes with experience through a lot of practise. I really had a hard time in the beginning with "the only" and I would always get tripped up and translate it as a necessary condition when it was a sufficient. So I kept drilling the lessons on conditional logic and translations, and after a while I got a handle on it.
  
  I remember J.Y posted somewhere in the conditional logic lesson a study method from a girl who took this course. I can't remember where exactly it was posted, but she would place all of the group 1,2,3,and 4 logical indicators on one side of the paper, and how to translate them on the other side of the paper, and she would fold the paper in half and study that way.
• 3 Likes

  Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  June 2015 8021 karma

  @Samcandoit! The conditional indicators drill that @Matt1234567 is referencing can be found here: http://7sage.com/lesson/conditional-indicators-drill/
  
  While I'm sure the opinions of some people on here may differ from mine, I think you're getting too wrapped up in trying to extract the meaning here, when you already understand what each word actually means in everyday English. Now you simply have to memorize what group they are in until it is automatic for you. Once you learn all four groups you can use the drill I linked to, as well as the flashcards that are in another lesson.
  
  While I think you're getting too caught up in the details and that can be counterproductive, I'll still try to break things down for you a bit. From my perspective, the meanings are pretty straightforward if you understand what each word means in English. The biggest issue people have between groups 1 and 2 is "the only" versus "only" so I will just address those. You can ignore all the other group 2 variations of "only" because they are just that, variations, and are simply modifying another quality. If you have issues with any of the other indicators I'd suggest finishing the whole Logic section and then repeating it from the beginning. I think it's easier to take the logical indicators section as a whole comprised of four parts rather than doing one half over the other.
  
  If I tell you that "The only Jedi in the room is named Luke", then you should see that if there were ten people in the room and you went up to every person and asked them if they were a Jedi or not you would get only one yes and that yes would be sufficient for you to know that that person's name is Luke. But rather than say all that, we just see "the only", "Jedi", and "Luke" and immediately think "sufficient" and translate as J --> L which is much faster than pondering the sentence that I wrote. While you might need to unpack these words in this manner now in order to understand what you're doing, I highly advise you to ditch this as soon as possible in order to learn to do this reflexively.
  
  As for the word "only", consider the sentence "Only Jedis in the room are named Luke". At first glance, this might make someone off the street think that every Jedi in the room is named Luke, but that is the rookie mistake of confusing the sufficient and necessary conditions. In this case if there are ten people in the room, and five are Jedis, we know that the five non Jedis cannot be named Luke. Therefore, we can say that in that room, it is necessary for someone to be a Jedi in order for them to be named Luke, and so if we meet someone named Luke, we know that he is a jedi. Simplifying with our lawgic we see "Only", "Jedis" and "Luke" and come up with L --> J which again is much faster and easier than keeping the other sentences straight.
  
  Hopefully these examples help to explain this a little bit better for you. Rather than sweating the details, I think your best bet is just to come up with a mnemonic device or something similar for each group and then just beat it into your brain until the indicators are automatic for you. Let me know if you have any more questions, and good luck!
  
  
• Samcandoit! Alum Member

  June 2015 71 karma

  Thank you @Matt1234567 . I really appreciate how @Pacifico explains this in detail, it is very helpful, and I will take your advise. By the way, I am little confused about "always", could you please give me an example and explain why it introduces necessity? Thank you so much!
• 1 Like

  Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  June 2015 8021 karma

  In a general sense, you can consider how the words "always", "must" and "require" signify something that is of a mandatory or necessary nature. Whatever those words refer to (i.e.- are followed by in our case) is something that needs to happen for something else to happen. However, they are not sufficient to prove that something will happen or that something is true, only that it is necessary for them to happen in order for something to happen or for something to be true.
  
  As an example, consider the sentence, "A Jedi is always a Force User". Breaking down the logic of the sentence tells us that it is sufficient to know that someone is a Jedi in order to know that they are also a Force User. From the other perspective, it is necessary for someone to be a Force User in order for them to be a Jedi. That took two sentences to fully describe the relationship, whereas lawgic allows us to be quick and accurate by taking "Jedi", "always" and "Force User" and translating immediately to J --> FU. As you can see, while it may help to take the long way round in the beginning, you will quickly realize it is much easier and more functional to utilize lawgic as often as possible as warranted by the questions or exercises you are doing.
• 1 Like

  nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  June 2015 7965 karma

  @"Samcandoit!" said:
  However, I think it would be better if folks could help me to understand the actual meaning of these indicators from group 1 and 2 in order to memorize them and process faster.
  

  @mike Kim recommends using "mantras" to solidify comprehension/retention of conditionals.
  
  How about this kind of thing:
  
  The only good Lannister is a dead Lannister.
  Daenerys must survive if Westeros is to be saved.
  Arya may kill only when the Many-Faced God commands her.
  
  Or whatever your preference is.
  
  For the record, I do not agree with #1; I think I'm probably more of a Lannister than a Targaryen but I'm definitely more of a Daenerys than a Cersei.